Beans - wow, I feel like we are at that meeting of the Dons in the Godfather where they agree to "make the peace"! I start by saying, in my Brando voice, "How did things get this far, I don't know". FlyDON quickly replies, "I know! You are friggin insane and hate your kids!"

Anyway, we all know what happened shortly after that meeting!

Take cover Gretzky-camp guys!

Beans has been reasonable for quite some time now.

"You are not your desktop wallpaper"

andyhack

Posted - 05/15/2007 : 18:54:08 Beans - wow, I feel like we are at that meeting of the Dons in the Godfather where they agree to "make the peace"! I start by saying, in my Brando voice, "How did things get this far, I don't know". FlyDON quickly replies, "I know! You are friggin insane and hate your kids!"

Anyway, we all know what happened shortly after that meeting!

Take cover Gretzky-camp guys!

Beans15

Posted - 05/15/2007 : 18:45:57 I see your point as well Andyhack. You, very much like Willus, favor physical, defensive players with offensive abilities. I, on the other hand, favor the phenom offensive talents. I agree that the real Messier is better than 2 or three mini Mark's. However, I feel that a Gretzky with a couple of mini-Mark's would be a more effective team than Messier with a couple of mini-Wayne's.

And I will be the first to admit, I am the first one to jump in to protect the Legacy of Gretzky. However, since I've been on this site, I have a new found respect for players like Orr, Lemieux, and even Howe. Although they are still behind the Great One, I can appreciate the other view. I am not one of the one's who this it's absurd that someone could possibly think anyone but Gretzky is the best.

But you are also right that there are many in the Gretzky Camp that have a fit if someone tries to say there is another player in the Universe.

I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane??

andyhack

Posted - 05/15/2007 : 18:11:49

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Andyhack, I completely disagree with you.

If you are building a team from the ground up and your player pool is limitless, taking Messier over Gretzky does not make sense. One can pick up players that could do what Messier did. Maybe not one player, but a couple of guys could fill the needs for grit, toughness, PK ability, and some offense as well. Filling Gretzky's gaps is a lot more challenging. And I am only taking into account Gretzky and Messier. As Lemieux would fit into a pick before Messier slot as well. Those kinds of talents can not be found easily.

It would be like saying you would take any defensemen over Bobby Orr. A guy like Ray Bourque was an all around great defensemen. One of the best ever. But taking him infront of Orr is kinda useless. You can get one or two defensemen to fill the gap of Bourque, but not that would fill the gap of Orr.

Not saying Messier would be a bad pick if Gretzky wasn't available. But taking Messier ahead of Gretzky makes me want to hit some kids.

Beans,

I understand your point and don't disagree at all with the way you analyze it. Looking at the availability of different types of players is, of course, something a GM should do. I guess where we differ though relates to your emphasis on offense. I would agree, again of course, that yes, in the "pure offense" category, Gretzky and Lemieux were rare jewels. I just don't value the pure offence thing as much as the other things mentioned in my post that I think favour Messier.

Also, I feel that Messier's combination of skill, grit, toughness, leadership, etc, particularly at the incredible level he was at for all those categories, was much rarer than you think. Moreover, I have always felt that whenever teams trade two or three good guys for one great guy, that the team getting the one great guy is smarter. So I would much rather have Mark than two or three mini Marks. Would the same analysis apply to Wayne (one Wayne better than 2 or 3 much lesser Waynes). Yes, of course it would. BUT, as mentioned above, I value the goals and assists much less than you do. Pucknuts, if you get a chance, could you please let us know how often the NHL's leading scoring team wins the Cup, cause a big part of my thinking is based on my hunch that more often than all of us think, that team doesn't win the Cup. Sorry, but you ARE the Stats Guy! If I am wrong, I'll eat my words online (if that is possible).

Anyway, all this is a long way of saying that I'd take my chances on getting some pretty good purely offensive players later in the draft after grabbing the best all round player right away if I have the chance.

One final point. Way back in March on the greatest ever thread I made this point and I want to remind you guys about it. Basically, my opinion on Orr/Messier over Gretzky is a side issue to me here. Even the hope that the Gretzky camp will acknowledge that a debate about Gretzky being the greatest ever is not crazy is kind of a side issue to me here. My main point back in March, and now, is that when SOME Gretzky camp members are confronted with someone who says "Hold it, Wayne may not be the BEST ever", they literally freak out - it seems to really rock their world! That point I think has been fairly evident recently.

Guest4435

Posted - 05/15/2007 : 10:06:36

quote:Originally posted by PuckNuts

I would select Gretzky any day, Messier was a dirty player, I count at least three suspensions from the NHL, 1985 10 games, 1996 2 games, and 2004 another 2 games, how many great leaders have suspensions as Messier did...not any I can remember...

If you are building a team from the ground up and your player pool is limitless, taking Messier over Gretzky does not make sense. One can pick up players that could do what Messier did. Maybe not one player, but a couple of guys could fill the needs for grit, toughness, PK ability, and some offense as well. Filling Gretzky's gaps is a lot more challenging. And I am only taking into account Gretzky and Messier. As Lemieux would fit into a pick before Messier slot as well. Those kinds of talents can not be found easily.

It would be like saying you would take any defensemen over Bobby Orr. A guy like Ray Bourque was an all around great defensemen. One of the best ever. But taking him infront of Orr is kinda useless. You can get one or two defensemen to fill the gap of Bourque, but not that would fill the gap of Orr.

Not saying Messier would be a bad pick if Gretzky wasn't available. But taking Messier ahead of Gretzky makes me want to hit some kids.

Guest9910

Posted - 05/14/2007 : 22:15:02

quote:Originally posted by GOWINGS19

Gretzky was better...but at the same time messier was an amazing talent himself...also i'm with willus on guest9910's wonderful insight...Howe was great buddy

"I donít need to score the goal. I need someone to start thinking about me and forgetting about scoring goals." -Vladmir Konstantinov

Yes (buddy), I agree wtih you that Howe was great. I wouldn't call put him in the Lemieux and Orr category of specially giftend players, however. I would Gretzky. We disagree. That's fine.

GOWINGS19

Posted - 05/14/2007 : 21:42:18 Gretzky was better...but at the same time messier was an amazing talent himself...also i'm with willus on guest9910's wonderful insight...Howe was great buddy

"I donít need to score the goal. I need someone to start thinking about me and forgetting about scoring goals." -Vladmir Konstantinov

PuckNuts

Posted - 05/14/2007 : 18:15:05

quote:Originally posted by willus3

He was willing to do whatever was necessary to help the team win. If that meant playing a hard nosed physical game, being an intimidating force, playing a shut down style defensive game or producing offensively, he would do it.

Messier was not hard nosed on his suspensions, he was upset with another player, and gave them a cheap shot, that is why he got suspended...

There are tough players, and then there are cheap shot artists that are dirty, and when they get caught they get suspended, Messier fits the bill of being dirty...

Tough guys that dish it out can also take it, and put up a good fight...Messier did not back up his actions with a fight he just dished out cheap shots...

Lead, follow, or get out of the way...

tctitans

Posted - 05/14/2007 : 17:49:25 Since Gretzky has a significant edge in the "Gretzky vs Lemieux" poll, I tend to agree that this poll doesnt make a lot of sense.

It would have been more logical to have a "Messier vs Lemieux" poll.

willus3

Posted - 05/14/2007 : 17:49:16

quote:Originally posted by Guest7418

Dumb poll. Better hockey player? Gretzky or Messier? Puullleeeease... Mark's mean streak is the only thing that he had, that Gretzky didnt have more of...

This comment is not well thought out. Sorry. Funny too how you felt compelled to comment on this "dumb" poll.

"You are not your desktop wallpaper"

Guest7418

Posted - 05/14/2007 : 17:46:04 Dumb poll. Better hockey player? Gretzky or Messier? Puullleeeease... Mark's mean streak is the only thing that he had, that Gretzky didnt have more of...

leafsfan_101

Posted - 05/14/2007 : 17:20:29 Gretzky made Messier what he became. Without Gretz I've heard that Messier would only be a mediocre 3rd liner. I don't know if this would be true but I think it has to be Wayne.

When life gives you lemons throw them at the Ottawa Senators and their fans and hope it gets them in the eyes ;)

willus3

Posted - 05/14/2007 : 17:19:34

quote:Originally posted by Guest9910

Depends on your idea of "better". I'd put Messier in the Howe category. Tough, strong skater, good offensively, won a few cups...in short, well rounded player with a lot of skill and determination. Gretzky, I'd put in the Lemieux and Orr category. These are special players (specially gifted). They come around once or twice every generation in every sport. Babe Ruth, Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky.... Now, with consistent work ethic and achievement (over an entire career), these special players go down in history as great players -- and belong with the afformentioned greats. Gretzky no doubt has all of that going for him, and, no, he doesn't belong in the same category as Mark Messier...not by a long shot. But, like I said, if "special player" is not your bag, then you'd probably vote for Messier.

You completely underestimate Howe.

"You are not your desktop wallpaper"

andyhack

Posted - 05/14/2007 : 17:18:35 Here's how I'd break it down Beans - not that different from you but the differences would be the tipping factors for me:

Offense: Gretzky- but Messier was, as you know, very skilled offensively - for me the gap between Wayne and Mark (in Wayne's favor) on offense is less important than the gap between Mark and Wayne (in Mark's favor) in the other categories listed below (I have to believe that otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate, right!).

Defense: Messier- in my opinion, at crunch time , defence is the most important aspect of hockey (I'd apply that statement even to your offensive powerhouse Oilers teams to a certain extent) - so this edge is valued highly (and I give Messier the edge even after considering the very legitimate "a good offence is a good defence" counter-argument).

Leadership: Messier - I don't think Gretzky would have inspired that Rangers team to the finals actually - that came from things like the two factors listed below more than anything else in my opinion. - I acknowledge that this did not show so much when they were older playing on the Rangers in '96-97 - I think it really showed in '84, '90 and '94 though.

Toughness/Physical Play: Messier (and, obviously, not even close)

Intimidation: Messier - this is a dimension above and beyond Messier simply being a tough guy - he was able to break down other teams with his will, determination and intimidating "presence" - sure Gretzky did that too with his offence - but this is an intangible category which I admittedly can't put into words very well. In any event, Gretzky's offensive intimidation is adequately covered in the Offence category.

Ability to dominate: Gretzky - but not by as much as you think Ė in addition to '94, you gotta give Messier his due for dominating a lot of games throughout the season and playoffs in '90 (his Hart year) too, as well as the great Con Smythe playoff in '84 (which launched the Oilers dynasty) - AND if you have a category like this you also have to have a category called something like "Effectiveness in games where neither dominated" - I think those games are by far in the majority, and I think in those games, other than offensive abilities, Messier would have had a larger edge in terms of contribution than Gretzky has in the "Domination" category, just cause, as you have said, he was the better overall player.

Overall Usefulness: Messier - what I mean by this is that Messier could be put on the ice at any time in any situation, including with a minute left protecting the lead - maybe there is an argument to put Gretzky out then too for the empty net goal, MAYBE, but there is no doubt whatsoever you want Messier out there at that key time. But all other situations too. You need a penalty killer, its Messier. You need a tough guy, it's Messier. You need someone to spark your team with some physical play, it's Messier. You need a guy to line up against the opposing team's best centre, it's Messier.

Beans and other fellow clique members (sorry but that was a wacky characterization by flyguy given the battles you and I have here, and how few of you are in the same boat as me), I agree with people who have said it would depend on your teams' needs. I have always approached this question from a ZERO starting point, like your GOAT draft. Who do you want to start to build your team around? I guess it then depends on the pool of players available (also, remember I always exclude goalies from this question). I personally would want the best overall player ever over the best offensive player ever to start my team off. Would it be an easy decision? No, of course not. Would I be totally wasting my time by even considering taking the best overall player ever? Call me insane, but I don't think so.

willus3

Posted - 05/14/2007 : 17:14:02 I'd take Messier. He was willing to do whatever was necessary to help the team win. If that meant playing a hard nosed physical game, being an intimidating force, playing a shut down style defensive game or producing offensively, he would do it. He's the better HOCKEY player.

"You are not your desktop wallpaper"

PuckNuts

Posted - 05/14/2007 : 14:54:16 I would select Gretzky any day, Messier was a dirty player, I count at least three suspensions from the NHL, 1985 10 games, 1996 2 games, and 2004 another 2 games, how many great leaders have suspensions as Messier did...not any I can remember...

Lead, follow, or get out of the way...

Beans15

Posted - 05/14/2007 : 11:33:59 Just out of curiousity, I would like to hear the reasons why someone would take Messier over Gretzky. There are many opinions on Gretzky, let's hear some Pro-Messier.

And yes, I did vote for Gretzky. Reasons are:

Offensive-Gretzky's aheadDefensive-Messier's aheadPowerplay-Gretzky aheadPK-Messier aheadLeadership-Gretzky's ahead(Yes, I said Gretzky! Put Gretzky on the teams Messier lead to the Finals and/or won the Cup with and I think the result would have been the same. However, put Messier on the 93 Kings do they make the finals?? I don't think so)Ability to dominate a Game-Grezky's ahead (Other than the 94 finals when Messier was unstoppable, there are far fewer situations of Messier owning the game than Gretzky.)

So in my books, Messier takes Defensive ability and PK ability. Gretzky takes the rest. No knock on Messier as I think he is a God, but you can find defensive specialist and PK specialist a lot easier than finding someone with 1/2 of Gretzky's offensive abilities.

Gretzky wins again.

PS-I love your kids and I would never hit them from behind. Unless they said no to playing for Team Canada. Then you are insane and you are a goof for thinking Crosby is not the best.And if you think differently, you are insane. Or does that make me insane?? I'm so confused.

BigShow

Posted - 05/14/2007 : 11:14:04 I voted Gretzky, but i think there is room for discussion.

99pickles

Posted - 05/14/2007 : 10:27:45 I voted Gretzky to this question, but whether I would take one over the other is a different question that requires a little more thought. As mentioned in the post above, it would depend on team budget, team mix etc.. but also depends on team needs. There are some things that Messier can do that Gretzky can't. Maybe I want those things more. Maybe I can more adequately fill the sccoring needs more easily with a few offensively gifted players and no Gretz, but I cannot fill leadership, and heart with a few more leaders with heart and have no Mess. But Wayne is the best hockey player.

Guest9910

Posted - 05/14/2007 : 09:06:18

quote:Originally posted by andyhack

I assume you wouldn't even think about it for a few minutes then, and that you believe that to do so would make you a bad G.M., is that right?

Fair enough. We have a different opinion. I don't think your opinion is insane. Just disagree with it.

Andyhack, I hope you don't think I'm saying you are insane. I'm saying if I were GM, I'd be insane to take Messier ahead of Gretzky.

Now, you ask if I'd be insane to think about it? Well, it would depend on the team and budge I had. If Gretzky's asking price was too much, and Messier would fit in nicely wth the guys and his asking price fit in nicely, then obviously I'd consider it for those reasons. But if everything was equal, and I could afford either player in their prime, I would definitely, without hesitation, pick Gretzky. The only thinking I'd be doing would be over dollars and cents.

andyhack

Posted - 05/14/2007 : 08:56:39 I assume you wouldn't even think about it for a few minutes then, and that you believe that to do so would make you a bad G.M., is that right?

Fair enough. We have a different opinion. I don't think your opinion is insane. Just disagree with it.

Guest9910

Posted - 05/14/2007 : 08:16:27

quote:Originally posted by andyhack

I think you may be talking about the '97 playoffs (the playoffs in the year 1996-1997). You are right, Gretzky was the better of the two players in that year's playoffs.

But, in earlier years, even with Gretzky's admittedly amazing offensive abilities and stats, even with Gretzky too in his admittedly mind-boggling prime, as a general manager, would you not at least think for a few minutes about the value of having an overall force such as Messier on your team ahead of Gretzky? Would that have made you a bad general manager?

You're right, it was 1997, not 96.

To your question: This reminds me of when we (the Canucks) tried to get Gretzky and, since we failed, got Messier instead the flollowing year. Oh, how I wish it were Gretzky! I cannot imagine the 1996-97 Gretzky (who ended up 3rd or 4th in NHL scoring with 97 points) playing between Bure and Mogilny. They would have been the most dominating line in hockey for about 4 years! I digress....

If I was GM back in Gretzky's prime, I would be completely insane to pick Messier ahead of him. Gretzky scored over 1200 points, including playoffs, during his first 5 seasons! Think about that one for just a second. 1200 points in 5 sesons. And by only the age of 26 he had already won EIGHT straight Hart trophies, and two Conn Smyth trophies as the player most valuable to his team! TEN MVP awards by age 26. Insane. And that's not even counting the five Lester B awards voted by the players for MVP....include those and he won 15 NHL MVP awards by the time he was 26 years old.... and that's not even counting the all-star MVPs! Okay, you get the idea. My poiint is that there's just too much, just way too much, to the point where it's ridiculous, to not pick Gretzky over any other player on the planet at the time, including Messier.

Okay, maybe this is what you're more after. Watch the 1987 Canada Cup. Both Messier and Gretzky were in their prime. But it was Gretzky who dominated, took control of each and every game, and won the MVP (and scoring title, of courrse). Yes, picking Messier ahead of Gretzky would have made you a bad GM, most definitely.

andyhack

Posted - 05/14/2007 : 06:16:50 I think you may be talking about the '97 playoffs (the playoffs in the year 1996-1997). You are right, Gretzky was the better of the two players in that year's playoffs.

But, in earlier years, even with Gretzky's admittedly amazing offensive abilities and stats, even with Gretzky too in his admittedly mind-boggling prime, as a general manager, would you not at least think for a few minutes about the value of having an overall force such as Messier on your team ahead of Gretzky? Would that have made you a bad general manager?

Guest9910

Posted - 05/13/2007 : 20:47:41 This thread reminds me of something. In the 1996 playoffs, Gretzky and Messier were together again in the postseason for the first time since the 1988 Oilers. They were both 36 years old. Gretzky totally dominated, scoring 2 hattricks (one against Floridia, the other against Philadelphia) and 20 points in 15 playoff games, while Messier struggled. never taking control. IMessier had the "C", yet it seemed evident that it was now Gretzky's team. The player who showed alll the heart and determination, was always in traffic and making things happen was Gretzky, not Messier. It was no coincidence that the Rangers opted to re-sign Gretzky and not Messier during that offseason. I think that if Messier had played up to expectations, the Rangers may have won the cup that year.

stastnysforever

Posted - 05/13/2007 : 20:36:31 Gretzky was better, but messier was good at every aspect of the game, I voted Gretzky

Buick92

Posted - 05/13/2007 : 15:35:40 gretzky is the best player that ever played in the nhl

Guest9910

Posted - 05/13/2007 : 13:12:13 Depends on your idea of "better". I'd put Messier in the Howe category. Tough, strong skater, good offensively, won a few cups...in short, well rounded player with a lot of skill and determination. Gretzky, I'd put in the Lemieux and Orr category. These are special players (specially gifted). They come around once or twice every generation in every sport. Babe Ruth, Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky.... Now, with consistent work ethic and achievement (over an entire career), these special players go down in history as great players -- and belong with the afformentioned greats. Gretzky no doubt has all of that going for him, and, no, he doesn't belong in the same category as Mark Messier...not by a long shot. But, like I said, if "special player" is not your bag, then you'd probably vote for Messier.

willus3

Posted - 05/13/2007 : 07:45:38

quote:Originally posted by fly4apuckguy

I voted for Messier.

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz

This was for shock value no doubt?

"You are not your desktop wallpaper"

SJSharks

Posted - 05/12/2007 : 22:37:23 I voted Gretzky.

Thanks for the great season Sharks! May'be next year.

fly4apuckguy

Posted - 05/12/2007 : 22:30:42 I voted for Messier.

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz

fly4apuckguy

Posted - 05/12/2007 : 22:30:05

quote:Originally posted by andyhack

Point taken Beans. And, okay, I can accept "a bit nutty" as being fairly accurate.

Pucknuts, in defence of Willus, it would be easier for the non-Gretzky camp to stop bringing up topics like this if guys like fly4apuckguy would stop saying things like we are insane, ridiculous, desperately in need of knowledge, etc. etc. etc. We are left to either bowing deeply to both his infinite wisdom and his assesment of us as fools, or to finding new ways to, at the very least, raise a reasonable doubt for those who think noone can be mentioned in the same breath as Gretzky in a best ever discussion, or those who may be influenced by such silliness.

Think of it as a public service!

"You are not only insane, but you also hate your kids" fly4apuckguy

I think you love me.

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz

andyhack

Posted - 05/12/2007 : 20:53:10 You're right TC - thats why I added the last edit about "those who may be influenced by such silliness"

"You are not only insane, but you also hate your kids" fly4apuckguy

tctitans

Posted - 05/12/2007 : 20:51:20

quote:Originally posted by andyhack

Point taken Beans. And, okay, I can accept "a bit nutty" as being fairly accurate.

Pucknuts, in defence of Willus, it would be easier for the non-Gretzky camp to stop bringing up topics like this if guys like fly4apuckguy would stop saying things like we are insane, ridiculous, desperately in need of knowledge, etc. etc. etc. We are left to either bowing deeply to both his infinite wisdom and his assesment of us as fools, or to finding new ways to, at the very least, raise a reasonable doubt for those who think noone can be mentioned in the same breath as Gretzky in a best ever discussion, or those who may be influenced by such silliness.

Think of it as a public service!

The problem is Andyhack, that all attempts are fultile. It's a losing battle that aint worth fighting. There are those who are in the extreme G-camp, those in the G-camp who admit there is at least a debate, and then those in other camps. It's not very likely that you are going to make one iota of difference, no matter what discussions you bring up, to those people in the extreme G-camp, and that is the camp that you are targetting.

andyhack

Posted - 05/12/2007 : 20:24:41 Point taken Beans. And, okay, I can accept "a bit nutty" as being fairly accurate.

Pucknuts, in defence of Willus, it would be easier for the non-Gretzky camp to stop bringing up topics like this if guys like fly4apuckguy would stop saying things like we are insane, ridiculous, desperately in need of knowledge, etc. etc. etc. We are left to either bowing deeply to both his infinite wisdom and his assesment of us as fools, or to finding new ways to, at the very least, raise a reasonable doubt for those who think noone can be mentioned in the same breath as Gretzky in a best ever discussion, or those who may be influenced by such silliness.

Think of it as a public service!

"You are not only insane, but you also hate your kids" fly4apuckguy

willus3

Posted - 05/12/2007 : 20:13:40

quote:Originally posted by PuckNuts

Are we actually going to compare every player in the NHL to Gretzky, If we vote for Messier will we see an end to this...

why not compare Wayne Gretzky to Dean Morton, he scored a goal in his only game, and had only two shots on net...I think he may be the best player that ever lived...

Lets get a grip, unless you are just looking to see what we all think, well now you know what I think...

Lead, follow, or get out of the way...

Yeah you're probably right, the fill in the next word in the sentence game is much less mind numbing.

"You are not your desktop wallpaper"

PuckNuts

Posted - 05/12/2007 : 19:24:01 Are we actually going to compare every player in the NHL to Gretzky, If we vote for Messier will we see an end to this...

why not compare Wayne Gretzky to Dean Morton, he scored a goal in his only game, and had only two shots on net...I think he may be the best player that ever lived...

Lets get a grip, unless you are just looking to see what we all think, well now you know what I think...

Lead, follow, or get out of the way...

willus3

Posted - 05/12/2007 : 18:00:30

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Willus, I think you have to adjust your question. I have stated the Messier is the most complete player ever, but that does not make him the greatest player ever. Gretzky's head, shoulders, torso, legs and feet ahead of anyone else offensively, and not a slouch on defense. He is the greatest player ever. But not the most complete player ever.

I think your question is set up for you to elude the statement, "If Messier is a better over all player than Gretzky, that must mean Gretzky is not the Greatest Ever."

And Andyhack, please don't paint all of us Gretzguy's with the same brush. I may think you are a bit nutty, but I am sure you love your kids.

The question was, who is the better hockey player. Interpret as you see fit.